Freezing the field or human shield?

The claim has hardened into accepted fact among many Democratic operatives: Hillary Clinton is freezing the Democratic 2016 field as she waits until possibly late this year to decide on another presidential run. It’s virtually impossible for anyone other than Clinton to raise money or build a campaign infrastructure, the thinking goes, with Clinton hovering overhead.

Yet Clinton’s allies believe it’s not true — and increasingly they are saying so. In fact, they argue the opposite: that the former first lady is shielding other prospective Democratic contenders from months of attacks and scrutiny they’d probably face without her in the picture. There’s simply no need for Clinton to start a campaign this early, they say.

Story Continued Below

“I don’t buy it at all. It’s crazy,” William Daley, former chief of staff for President Barack Obama, said of complaints about her timetable. “Maybe they’re all better off … whoever jumps in will have instant analysis, attention … Most of these people have day jobs. That’s the most important thing for them” to do right now.

The question of whether Clinton is helping or hindering fellow Democrats could prove critical for the party in the event that she declines to run, which top donors and officials reluctantly acknowledge is possible for a variety of reasons. If she eventually passes, it could leave the party with little time to devise a backup plan with what many strategists privately call a dearth of viable replacements.

Democratic operatives who believe Clinton’s prolonged time frame is problematic are reluctant to say so publicly lest they antagonize the party’s potential 2016 standard-bearer. But the view is widely held.

“Since the Clinton camp has sent just about every smoke signal that she’s in, there has been very little oxygen for other Democrats to test-drive a message or build a coalition — and some strong Democrats that could run may have taken a pass entirely since they assumed she was running,” said one former Obama adviser.

“If she doesn’t run, there won’t be a series of candidates simply making the next move in their meticulous plan — there will be a scramble because there’s no obvious alternative.”

Phil Singer, a Democratic strategist who worked on Clinton’s 2008 campaign, said it’s self-evident that other potential hopefuls are, for the most part, hedging against her candidacy.

“Given the strength of her prospective candidacy, it’s hardly a surprise that other candidates are lukewarm about jumping into the 2016 fray,” he said. “At some point, the party will need some kind of signal about her intentions because they’ll have to field a candidate but that time has not yet arrived.”

Clinton’s most vocal backers point to Bill Clinton’s dark-horse run for president in 1991. That year, he was a little-known governor from Arkansas, while New York Gov. Mario Cuomo was the Democratic nominee-in-waiting, pre-emptively blocking any potential foe as he waited until less than a year before the election to decide whether to run.

Cuomo defied expectations and pulled the plug on a campaign in December 1991, after famously leaving a plane idling on a tarmac as he deliberated whether to fly to New Hampshire for the primary. Up to that point, though, he provided valuable cover for other Democrats, including Bill Clinton. Instead of the media focusing on the spate of Clinton scandals that ultimately shaped 1992, he had time to define himself positively as “The Man from Hope.”

Though Hillary Clinton is a more formidable potential Democratic nominee than Cuomo was then, her supporters say she could end up serving much the same role for a 2016 Democratic bench that operatives bemoan as thin.

“I actually think it’s a good thing — if Hillary has frozen the field, it’s a good thing,” said former Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell, a Clinton backer who described the Cuomo parallel as “very apt” to the current situation.

“To be honest, people start these campaigns far too early,” said Rendell. “The desire to keep a Democratic president will still be strong [within the party] … it’ll be a more compact campaign, and to that extent maybe a less damaging and divisive campaign.”

Democratic strategist Steve Murphy, who has long supported the Clintons, agreed, saying, “most of what” candidates do this far out from an election “is blow money and commit gaffes.”

Asked to comment on the sentiment that Clinton is freezing the field, her spokesman Nick Merrill emailed, “She as much as anyone knows that running for President is a very personal and weighty decision that people need to make on their own timeline, based on whatever factors they want to take into account.”

Clinton, who party strategists hope will be compelled to run by the void she would fill, has been the only Democrat besides Obama who’s been a major target for Republicans the past year. Speaker after speaker went after her at the CPAC conference of conservative activists earlier this month. The research super PAC America Rising has dedicated itself to raising doubts about Clinton’s record as she decides whether to run.

Other potential Democratic 2016 candidates have received a fraction of the attention. That makes it harder for figures like Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley to raise their national profiles. But it also means that Maryland’s botched set up of a health care exchange under Obamacare hasn’t come under sustained scrutiny in the national press.

The same goes for New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who has had relatively light national coverage of his state’s high unemployment rate and contentious debate over fracking for natural gas. New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand has solidified a reputation as a crusader against sexual assaults in the military, without opposition research hits on her time as a corporate lawyer. Even Vice President Joe Biden hasn’t been subjected to steady GOP attacks since the 2012 election.